The cost of the administration’s budget vision is the center of the battle. The White House budget increases federal spending by at least $500 billion over the next decade — a shocking number, especially as it excludes the cost of Obama’s touted health-care reform. Obama states that he would pay for it all by raising taxes on high earners and corporations as well as cutting federal health spending (even while cutting taxes for middle-income citizens). Sadly, when real economists look at this, it seems his budget would not generate enough cash to finance the additional spending he seeks for routine government programs.

There is so much tea to brew with the Obama budget, I hardly know where to begin.

Firstly, Vice President Biden’s campaign statements that the tax increases would hit people with incomes of $250,000 ..then $200,000…then $125,000! Therefore, I suspect that eventually most of will be marked as “wealthy” — just as I was duing Clinton’s middle class income tax “cut” that took more out of my pocket when I was earning less that $40,000/year.

In fact, the Washington Post reports the following:

“If you think with this kind of incredible growth in government that they’re going to only tax wealthy people, then I have some old lottery tickets I want to sell you,” said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee.

Secondly, Obama claims he has located a lot of “waste” that he is removing, so that this money will pay for his “vision”. However, it seems that much of the trimming will be at the expense of our effective military — and that the offsets are more then made up by the special interest pay-outs. Again, from the Washington Post:

The claim of $2 trillion in savings is “easily blown apart,” said Robert Bixby, executive director of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group, and one of several deficit hawks briefed on the plan by White House budget director Peter R. Orszag.

For example, in the Agriculture Department, Obama proposes to cut $15 billion in subsidies to big farms and crop insurance. But he would spend an extra $10 billion on child nutrition. In the Education Department, Obama would slash $54 billion from student loan programs, in large part by cutting private banks out of the system. But he would spend an extra $120 billion expanding the Pell Grant college aid program and creating a new “college access and completion fund.”

Thirdly, that threat of removing tax breaks for mortgages and charitable giving — no matter what income level the tax-payer achieves — will force people to change HOW they handle their finances. Many Blue State Democrats are very unhappy with the administration’s proposals, because without those tax breaks, their constituents will have less discretionary income for things like campaign contributions AND more reason to complain. With a greater tax burden, the achievers/employers in this country will have no choice but to cut-back on employing people in lower tax brackets: gardeners, personal trainers, housekeepers, and others. Ultimately, lower income people who work for dynamic, creative and profitable capitalists punished under Obama’s budgets will also be punished. I am certain this is NOT the change they were hoping for.

The Washington Post notes the following Democrat complaint:

Sen. Kent Conrad (Democrat-N.D.), a deficit hawk who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, said he is “very uncomfortable with the buildup of debt” and urged Obama to make good on his promise to overhaul federal retirement and health-care programs. Also, Conrad said, “More discipline on the spending side is also going to be required.”